There are reasons why engineers, technologists, entrepreneurs, etc., tend as a minority group to find Marx’s theories so appalling. It goes way beyond the individual vs. the tribe thing. Inevitably, those praising Marx and his theories express an economic model – an actual mathematical equation purporting to represent something real, in factual economies, and the equations are so overwhelmingly simplistic that they can’t possibly model anything close to something real. It may not even be purely mathematical. Sometimes it is as simple as a political assertion masked as an equation, as if it was a law of nature. For example:

PRICE = COST + PROFIT (1)

As if that wasn’t just an assertion, but the actual economic ‘law’ that determined PRICE—ie, that set PRICE. It is true, in that one definition of PROFIT can be expressed as

PROFIT=PRICE-COST (2)

and one can be easily derived from the other, but the cause/effect implication is far different in those two equations, (1) and (2). (1) carries with it the implication that PRICE is determined by COST+PROFIT, while (2) carries with it the implication that PROFIT is determines by PRICE-COST, and only one in fact can be true, in a cause and effect sense. The assertion that PRICE is set by COST+PROFIT is a political assertion, and one that doesn’t bear much scrutiny in the real world.

The required disciplines of the hard science – significance, uncertainty analysis, calibration – are uniformly missing. Not so much dismissed or ill regarded as never recognized as a significant part of the scientific process to begin with. The entire endeavor is perceived, therefore, as an example of what Feynman referred to as ‘Cargo Cult Science’ in his 1974 Cal Tech commencement speech. It is perceived as the veneer of mathematics and science, without the discipline or essence or either.

This impression is not improved by increasing the number of decimal places carried forward in the analysis; in fact, the impression is reinforced. It is perceived as a process similar to someone stumbling into a math or science lecture, seeing the form of presentation, the charts, the tables, the graphs—the white labcoats even, and then running off to an unrelated subject and borrowing just some of what was briefly glimpsed, mimicking the form but not the essence, and attempting to borrow the veneer of actual science to make what is in essence a political argument. Pretty much what a Paul Krugman does 24/7/365. This tactic works well in impressing the majority of folks who have never actually labored in the math and science lecture halls, but not nearly as well with the minority who have. And so, it persists as a political tactic, because as politics, it is an entirely effective tactic.

Another reason that Marx’s naked assertions tend not to sit well with other than technical illiterates is the shallow and incomplete reasoning at the very foundation of his assertions: “Capitalism is inherently exploitive because it pays workers less than their added value.”

This is a naked assertion purposefully blind to the following facts:

1] Risk is unavoidable in the universe. Do we fish the deep or the shallows today? The answer is not always the same. We intelligently assess risk, but we never eliminate it. It is always with us.

2] Wage workers are paid a guaranteed rate of return for their efforts, win or lose. That guarantee is the reason they are paid wages at a discount. The value of that guarantee must be included in the assessment of their compensation. Who guarantees that rate of return? Ultimately, others who participate in the economies with ROI totally at risk, with no guarantees. They expose themselves to unlimited downside in return for the chance of unlimited upside. Marx’s foundational assertions are totally ignorant of the value of such guarantees. Marx and his acolytes want their cake(guaranteed wages)and eat it, too(at the same levels of compensation as those who risk all returns.)

3] In the American model, workers have the choice to participate in the risk/reward model in a self-modulated way; they can choose to hold no stock in companies, a little stock in companies, or a lot of stock in companies, and all of that is at risk, as is, their total exposure.

Marx’s gibberish is totally blind to any of that.

One of the first things a scientist or mathematician would do in any argument is define terms, and so, “Politics: the art and science of getting what we want from other people, using any means short of actual violence.” It is crucial to understand what we are about when we are toiling in the field of politics.

It is also insightful to realize that, in many political arguments, the last thing in the world that those making the arguments want for you or I to understand is the meaning of the word ‘politics,’ which is why, guaranteed, when you ask your basic 4^th year PolitSci major to define the word ‘politics’ that they will stare at you like you have C4 strapped to your chest.

Politics defined.

In recent years, on more than one occasion, I asked 4th year/senior PoliSci majors to give me their working definition of the word 'politics.' I wasn't trying to be a wise-guy, I was sincerely interested in what state-of-the-educational art was in the topic of 'politics.' I was looking for a usable meta-definition of the word 'politics,' not examples of 'politics.' We use this word in every second sentence; surely, we all have some idea what we are engaged in when we are engaged in 'politics.'

On these occasions, I generally got stared at as if I had C-4 strapped to my chest; this question was that terrifying. The responses ranged from embarrassed chagrin, "Gosh, I never thought about that!" to the less than satisfying, "You know, political parties and stuff." I thought these non-answers were revealing.

But before we are too hard on these mostly young folks, especially for using the word in its definition, let's look at the less than enlightening modern dictionary 'definition' of the word 'politics."

pol·i·tics

   [pol-i-tiks] Show IPA

noun ( used with a singular or plural verb )

1.

the science or art of political government.

2.

the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.

3.

political affairs: The advocated reforms have become embroiled in politics.

4.

political methods or maneuvers: We could not approve of his politics in winning passage of the bill.

5.

political principles or opinions: We avoided discussion of religion and politics. His politics are his own affair.

and then...

po·lit·i·cal

   [puh-lit-i-kuhl] Show IPA

adjective

1.

of, pertaining to, or concerned with politics: political writers.

2.

of, pertaining to, or connected with a political party: a political campaign.

3.

exercising or seeking power in the governmental or public affairs of a state, municipality, etc.: a political machine; a political boss.

4.

of, pertaining to, or involving the state or its government: a political offense.

5.

having a definite policy or system of government: a political community.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com

Ha! Are we having fun yet?

Can we even pretend to be informed by those definitions, if we are looking for a usable meta-definition of the word?

Even no less than an authority than UNESCO, on one of its 'resources for educators' websites, honestly informs us that 'there is no widely accepted definition of the word 'politics' ... before providing their own definition(by necessity.)

This, to me, is a hint, even if it is a circular hint: the fact that there is a struggle to define the world 'politics' is itself a hint of the 'political' struggle. If you go on a search to 'define the word politics', you will find almost as many definitions as there are people in the world, but that is only because many people never consider its meaning, or think they know the meaning from context, and never seek to fully identify the meaning. And so, it is possible to immerse yourself into the science of Political Science for four years at a major university (such as Duke or Syracuse, not that it matters), and never pause, not even once in those four years, and even consider the meaning of the word 'politics.'

The reason for that, I believe, is itself a political tactic; for some flavors of politics, the last thing in the world anyone wants is for there to be a broad understanding in the world at large what we are all about when we are involved with 'politics.'

And so, I will provide my usable, for me, meta-definition of the word 'politics.'

Politics: the art and science of getting what we want from others using every means short of actual violence. The superset that includes violence, I refer to as 'mega-politics.' Commerce is the subset that includes the offering of value-for-value as a strategy(which can in some instances be corrupted by the offering of false-value for real-value.)

The sometimes definition 'the art and science of ruling others' is a subset, an example of the above meta-definition(when what we want is to 'rule others.')

The sometimes definition 'the art and science of who gets what when and how' is also a subset, an example of the above when what we want is to be the folks who decide 'who gets what when and how.'

The sometimes definition 'the art and science of governing' is also a subset, an example of the above when what we want is to govern others.

But, none of these more restrictive examples is broad enough to encompass 'personal politics.'


"What we want from others" might include the TV Remote, love, affection, admiration, the validation of the parking of our very souls, a gallon of refined gasoline, to be invited to dinner, their vote, carnal knowledge of their wife, or Kuwait, and how we get those things from others depends on our politics.

Strategies might include "To ask." This often works in the case of the TV Remote, but not always.

Other strategies might include "To offer value in exchange." We use this one often, and it works quite well. It is often possible for these trades to be win-win, because each of us in the transaction values what we are giving up less than what we are obtaining(or else we wouldn't likely make the trade.) But, it is also possible to be the victim of false commerce, of receiving false value for real value(and under the rules of our political context, that is to say, the rules of acceptable tactics for getting what we want from others, we often have a cause of action in those instances. The balance of the tribe, selfishly wanting to enforce the rules of our expensively maintained and largely beneficial political context, will rush in with the force of the state to enforce the rules.

These rules are what defines 'a political context.' They are not the same in all political contexts. For example, in Hitler's Germany, only the state(or in fact, those who claimed to speak for the state) could 'want from others.' Individuals/citizens could want nothing from others. It was Tribe Uber Alles. That is one way to limit politics, just not the (once) American way.

Other strategies include "to convince, cajole, propagandize, lie to, or deceive.' These are often just shy of actually breaking any laws in our political context, and their persistence is a tribute to their efficacy.

When Saddam wanted Kuwait from others, he relied on mega-politics, actual violence.

And, so on.

And so, a pressing need in our political context is to ask the tribal question, 'What are reasonable limits as to what we can want from others?

Ownership of their lives?

How about, domain over their 'excess' income?

Their third child?

How about the most elusive tribal want of all; "To be left alone in freedom, to interact under rules of free association?"

Because indeed, not all tribal wants can be met, especially if there are no limits as to what is reasonable to want from others. Those wants can range all the way from the aforementioned "To be left alone by others" all the way to "To ride others like a tribal property pony for all of our needs, wants, wishes, desires, whims, and even, implementation of our worldviews."

Clearly, those two sets of tribal wishes cannot be simultaneously met. So, what is the foundation for choosing reasonable limits?

It is our competing foundations of morality and justice, and there is the rub in our political context. We have all but delegated 'morality' to religion, and have simultaneously firewalled 'religion' from the state. So...what is there to guide the state in regard to 'what is reasonable to want from others?'

The FF tried to codify this civic morality into the constitution and BoR, but insufficiently to thwart the bottomless wishes and wants and whims of a tribe hell bent on 'what it wants from others' uber alles. The Achilles Heel in this foundation of freedom is that they left a path to power via pandering to the majority, which seldom has any issues with eating the minority.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

So, what is it that we are involved with when we delve into 'politics,' other than, the graceless clawing of humanity over other humanity, even to define the word politics?